Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Reply #54: From the first post: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov-29-04 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. From the first post:
Quote: "the Commission Report states: 9:20 UA headquarters aware that Flight 175 had crashed into WTC (p. 32) Unfortunately this is simply not true."

How do you know that is not true? They didn't immediately hold a press conference? Maybe they were busy wondering what their other planes might crash into.
__________

Quote: "United is also saying now that they are concerned about a further flight that apparently is still missing, flight 175. It is a Boeing 767. It was scheduled from Boston to Los Angeles. That flight apparently is still unaccounted for, according to officials from United."

A company not releasing information. (Possibly pending a decision from their lawyers.)
__________

Quote: "UA confirms that Flight 175 crashed but ….: “United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767 crashes. The flight was bound from Boston to Los Angeles. It carried 56 passengers, two pilots and seven flight attendants. The airline would not say where that plane crashed.”"

A company releasing some information, but only (possibly) what their lawyers approved.
__________

My point was that a company might not release information right away that could possibly open them up to lawsuits. They might want to check with their lawyers first. Just because certain information is not released to the press does not constitute proof that they don't have said information. (This is only regarding the United flights, American might have different procedures for releasing information.)
__________

Also from your first post:

Quote: "Also Michael McCormick, the FAA's New York air traffic manager had nothing mysterious to tell in “a press conference in which air traffic controllers in New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C., made their first extensive public comments since the attacks.”
(Boston Globe, 8/13/02)

Mr. MIKE McCORMICK (New York Air Traffic Manager): We tracked that aircraft as it turned southbound and then back northeast-bound, back toward Manhattan. I assumed at that point that that target of that aircraft was, in fact, the World Trade Center.
ORR: Controllers tracked the hijacked jet for 11 agonizing and helpless minutes.
Mr. McCORMICK: For those 11 minutes, I knew, we knew, what was going to happen, and that was difficult.
(CBS, 8/13/02)

''Probably one of the most difficult moments in my life was the 11 minutes from the point I watched that aircraft when we first lost communication to the point that aircraft hit the World Trade Center.
(Boston Globe, 8/13/02)
(Ottawa Citizen, 8/13/03)
"

So air traffic control knew right away. They don't call the airline when one of their planes crashes? If they knew that Flight 175 hit the WTC, why would they think Flight 77 hit it also? Weren't they watching the news? Everyone knew that only one plane hit the South Tower. Why couldn't they figure it out and inform the airlines? Or better yet, just call the news media?
__________

Quote: "CNN states on September 12, 2001 that United Airlines confirmed at 11:59 that Flight 175 had crashed. (The other three flights had been already confirmed long before)."

Quote: "Four hours after the second attack the confusion reaches its climax:

LYNN SHERR: That--what--what you're seeing is the north tower. Behind it there's a second identical tower, as you know. That plane crashed right into it. All morning we have been told by American Airlines, among others, that that flight, that airplane, was actually American Airlines Flight 77 going out of Dulles to Los Angeles. We were told 58 passengers, four flight attendants, two pilots on that plane. It was hijacked at 9:03--I'm sorry, it was hijacked right after takeoff. Crashed into the tower at 9:03 AM.

JENNINGS: Let me stop you right there, Lynn, because I just--I have had different information so I'm going to rely on you here. You now believe the American Airlines Flight 77 which took off from Dulles on its way to Los Angeles, crashed into the Trade towers, not into the Pentagon?

SHERR: We were told that originally. What I'm about to tell you is the FBI is now saying that that's the one that went into the Pentagon. The FBI spokesperson is saying that the flight that went into World Trade Center tower number two, that's south tower, was, in fact United Airlines 175, a Boeing 767 that left Boston for LAX, departed at 7:58 AM this morning; 56 passengers, two pilots, seven flight attendants. This is confusing, I apologize. We are getting two different answers to our questions."
(ABC, 9/11/01 1 p.m. – 2 p.m.)

So the other three flights had already been confirmed long before? Why did ABC not know about the details of the already long confirmed Flight 77? Didn't American know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? Was that information not part of the confirmation? Or did they just announce that it crashed, but not say where? Did they keep it a secret from ABC?

Is there still confusion about what happened to Flight 175?

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  Flight 175: quite a mysterious flight ... John Doe II  Oct-08-04 05:29 AM   #0 
   UA 175 trajectory  seatnineb   Oct-08-04 09:40 AM   #1 
   Burnback interview.  seatnineb   Oct-08-04 10:36 AM   #2 
   BROOKLYN??????  MercutioATC   Oct-08-04 12:24 PM   #3 
   Fair point.....  seatnineb   Oct-08-04 01:21 PM   #4 
      We all saw similar video (the plane appearing to go through)...  MercutioATC   Oct-08-04 01:46 PM   #5 
         That you could see it from Brooklyn  John Doe II   Oct-08-04 02:42 PM   #6 
            But he could see that it had "no windows" from Brooklyn?  MercutioATC   Oct-08-04 02:47 PM   #7 
               Excuse me  John Doe II   Oct-08-04 02:50 PM   #8 
                  I think it's a good question to ask...and one that deserves an answer.  MercutioATC   Oct-08-04 06:32 PM   #11 
                     Good to hear  John Doe II   Oct-09-04 10:47 AM   #12 
                        Dulce's arguement is, I believe, unfounded.  MercutioATC   Oct-09-04 11:22 AM   #13 
                           No  John Doe II   Oct-09-04 11:28 AM   #14 
                              Again, the initial information was conflicting.  MercutioATC   Oct-09-04 11:37 AM   #15 
                                 Ok  John Doe II   Oct-09-04 11:45 AM   #16 
                                    Again, I agree it's a question that bears asking.  MercutioATC   Oct-09-04 12:00 PM   #17 
                                       Ok  John Doe II   Oct-09-04 12:12 PM   #18 
                                          I have no idea.  MercutioATC   Oct-09-04 10:52 PM   #21 
                                          It doesn't. Your question is clear and obvious. He has no answer for it.  stickdog   Oct-09-04 11:14 PM   #22 
                                             I'll go with a fifth option...  MercutioATC   Oct-09-04 11:22 PM   #23 
   I'm still  MrSammo1   Nov-11-04 02:45 AM   #43 
   Rewriting history.  DulceDecorum   Oct-08-04 03:26 PM   #9 
   Thanks!  John Doe II   Oct-08-04 03:44 PM   #10 
      washington post also said 77 hit WTC  RedSock   Oct-09-04 03:09 PM   #19 
         Thanks  John Doe II   Oct-09-04 04:44 PM   #20 
   Further question  John Doe II   Oct-10-04 04:32 PM   #24 
   Let me see if I understand your position  LARED   Oct-11-04 09:06 AM   #25 
   Facts and Fiction  John Doe II   Oct-11-04 09:16 AM   #26 
      Quick comments  LARED   Oct-11-04 10:32 AM   #27 
         The same UA dispatcher, Ed Ballinger, worked both flights.  stickdog   Oct-11-04 11:01 AM   #28 
            And slice it and dice it six ways till Sunday  tngledwebb   Oct-11-04 11:33 AM   #29 
            Was Ed Ballinger the communication link to the outside?  LARED   Oct-11-04 11:40 AM   #30 
               Please explain why when UA announced Flight 93 had crashed, they  stickdog   Oct-11-04 11:50 AM   #31 
                  Do you expect a definitive answer?  LARED   Oct-11-04 12:14 PM   #32 
                     Commission Report states  John Doe II   Oct-11-04 01:38 PM   #33 
                     Honestly  LARED   Oct-11-04 02:03 PM   #35 
                        Honestly  John Doe II   Oct-11-04 02:15 PM   #36 
                           I find nothing that screams problem  LARED   Oct-11-04 02:30 PM   #37 
                              Not that easy  John Doe II   Oct-11-04 02:34 PM   #38 
                     Commission Report states  John Doe II   Oct-11-04 01:40 PM   #34 
   Anybody has an idea?  John Doe II   Oct-19-04 02:59 PM   #39 
   Precision  John Doe II   Nov-01-04 08:05 AM   #40 
   I change the question  John Doe II   Nov-10-04 05:29 PM   #41 
   What if.......  Old and In the Way   Nov-12-04 12:30 PM   #44 
      Hard to believe  John Doe II   Nov-12-04 04:53 PM   #46 
   Manager of American Airlineq  John Doe II   Nov-10-04 05:34 PM   #42 
   AA77 flightpath  Old and In the Way   Nov-12-04 01:49 PM   #45 
      The bump  John Doe II   Nov-12-04 04:56 PM   #47 
         That's where I took the pic from.  Old and In the Way   Nov-12-04 05:12 PM   #48 
         I was just reading another thread about Vigilant Guardian.  Old and In the Way   Nov-12-04 05:15 PM   #49 
   The funny thing about most corporations is....  Make7   Nov-27-04 10:15 PM   #50 
   Hm  k-robjoe   Nov-28-04 09:03 AM   #51 
   By United Airlines? eom.  Make7   Nov-29-04 03:38 AM   #52 
      No, American Airlines 77!  John Doe II   Nov-29-04 03:52 AM   #53 
         From the first post:  Make7   Nov-29-04 05:29 AM   #54 
            Thanks a lot for your detailed questions!  John Doe II   Dec-01-04 08:20 AM   #56 
               UA lost contact  John Doe II   Dec-01-04 04:30 PM   #57 
               The object doesn't need to do anything  Make7   Dec-01-04 10:04 PM   #60 
                  UA 175 never switched off its transponder  John Doe II   Dec-02-04 06:20 PM   #62 
               I personally have none.  Make7   Dec-01-04 09:40 PM   #59 
                  Don't worry  John Doe II   Dec-02-04 06:24 PM   #63 
                     I'd like to look at it too.  Make7   Dec-03-04 08:56 AM   #67 
   Because they knew that UAL93 crashed in PA.  MercutioATC   Nov-29-04 11:36 PM   #55 
      Thanks for responding.  Make7   Dec-01-04 08:52 PM   #58 
      Transponder answer:  MercutioATC   Dec-02-04 04:45 AM   #61 
         A few more questions:  Make7   Dec-03-04 01:05 AM   #65 
            Your first question  John Doe II   Dec-03-04 03:36 AM   #66 
            RE: UA 175 never switched off its transponder  Make7   Dec-03-04 10:06 AM   #68 
               "This allow(s) controllers"  John Doe II   Dec-04-04 04:45 PM   #71 
            Here's how our computers work:  MercutioATC   Dec-03-04 09:03 PM   #69 
               That clears up my confusion. Thank you. n/t  Make7   Dec-04-04 07:49 AM   #70 
      Here I can't agree  John Doe II   Dec-02-04 06:30 PM   #64 
   I wonder if the confusion UA had with flight 175 had something to do with  spooked911   Feb-01-05 09:52 PM   #72 
      The problem with that supposition:  MercutioATC   Feb-02-05 07:28 AM   #73 
         It was a "real" flight that took off and could be tracked by radar but  spooked911   Feb-02-05 09:12 AM   #74 
            My point is that the flight was seen leaving the gate.  MercutioATC   Feb-02-05 09:15 AM   #75 
               Then why was United so confused about their own flight?  spooked911   Feb-02-05 11:43 AM   #76 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC